Occupy Everywhere - Sept 17th - Day of Rage Against Wall Street and what it stands for!

[Keith Millea]

Update on Oakland - Another Police Riot - rubber bullets; tear gas, pepper spray and flash-bangs - about 100 arrests so far.......so expect an even bigger march tomorrow! The Police are their own worst enemies in building this movement!

Geez Peter,
I watched all day into the evening,until they carted off the injured protesters who were hit by a car.I thought the whole thing went beautiful.Now they're busting heads again?OH SHIT!!!!

[Peter Lemkin]

Over 40.000 people participated!!!! The few bad incidents [few broken windows and tagging, etc.] seem to have been by anarchists or agents provocateurs for Police/FBI/HS [many who are both!!!!]. This is really gaining traction now, so one can expect some real heavy repression or dirty tricks [likely both] to befall this movement soon!

[Lauren Johnson]

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27479

On Sunday, October 23, a meeting was held at 60 Wall Street. Six leaders discussed what to do with the half-million dollars that had been donated to their organization, since, in their estimation, the organization was incapable of making sound financial decisions. The proposed solution was not to spend the money educating their co-workers or stimulating more active participation by improving the organization's structures and tactics. Instead, those present discussed how they could commandeer the $500,000 for their new, more exclusive organization. No, this was not the meeting of any traditional influence on Wall Street. These were six of the leaders of Occupy Wall Street (OWS).


Occupy Wall Street's Structure Working Group (WG) has created a new organization called the Spokes Council. "Teach-ins" were held to workshop and promote the Spokes Council throughout the week of October 22-28. I attended the teach-in on Sunday the 23rd.


According to Marisa Holmes, one of the most outspoken and influential leaders of OWS, the NYC-GA started receiving donations from around the world when OWS began on September 17. Because the NYC-GA was not an official organization, and therefore could not legally receive thousands of dollars in donations, the nonprofit Alliance for Global Justice helped OWS create Friends of Liberty Plaza, which receives tax-free donations for OWS. Since then, Friends of Liberty Plaza has received over $500,000. Until October 28, anybody who wanted to receive more than $100 from Friends of Liberty Plaza had to go through the often arduous modified consensus process (90% majority) of the NYC-GAwhich, despite its well-documented inefficiencies, granted $25,740 to the Media WG for live-stream equipment on October 12, and $1,400 to the Food and Medical WGs for herbal tonics on October 18.


At the teach-in, Ms. Holmes maintained that while the NYC-GA is the "de facto" mechanism for distributing funds, it has no right to do so, even though she acknowledged that most donors were likely under the impression that the NYC-GA was the only organization with access to these funds. Two other leaders of the teach-in, Daniel and Adash, concurred with Holmes.


Ms. Holmes also stated at the teach-in that five people in the Finance WG have access to the $500,000 raised by Friends of Liberty Plaza. When Suresh Fernando, the man taking notes, asked who these people are, the leaders of the Structure WG nervously laughed and said that it was hard to keep track of the "constantly fluctuating" heads of the Finance WG. Mr. Fernando made at least four increasingly explicit requests for the names. Each request was turned down by the giggling, equivocating leaders.


The leaders of the Structure WG eventually regained control of the teach-in. They said that they too were unhappy with the Finance WG's monopoly over OWS's funds, which is why they wanted to create the Spokes Council. What upset them more, however, was the inefficient and fickle General Assembly. A major point of the discussion was whether the Spokes Council and the NYC-GA should have access to the funds, or just the Spokes Council.


Daniel, a tall, red-bearded, white twenty-somethingone of the six leaders of the teach-insaid that the NYC-GA needed to be completely defunded because those with "no stake" in the Occupy Wall Street movement shouldn't have a say in how the money was spent. When I asked him whether everybody in the 99% had a stake in the movement, he said that only those occupying or working in Zuccotti Park did. I pointed out that since the General Assembly took place in Zuccotti Park, everybody who participated was an occupier. He responded with a long rant about how Zuccotti Park is filled with "tourists," "free-loaders" and "crackheads" and suggested a solution that the even NYPD has not yet attempted: Daniel said that he'd like to take a fire-hose and clear out the entire encampment, adding hopefully that only the "real" activists would come back.
The main obstacle to the creation of the Spokes Council was that the NYC-GA had already voted against it four times. One audience member observed that no organization would vote to relinquish its power. Some of the strongest proponents of the Spokes Council responded that they had taken this into account, and were planning on creating the Spokes Council regardless of whether the NYC-GA accepted the proposal. They claimed that, in the interests of non-hierarchy, neither the Spokes Council nor the General Assembly should have power over the other.


In the minutes of the teach-in on Saturday the 22nd, the leaders recognize that usurping power from the NYC-GA might make people uncomfortable. The Structure WG's eventual proposal was to keep the General Assembly alive and functioning while the Spokes Council "gets on its feet." Working Groups could still technically get funding through the NYC-GA, but the "GA may stop making those kinds of decisions because people [will] stop going… To officially take power away isn't necessary," especially because the NYC-GA works on the consensus model. A small group of people aiming to delegitimize the NYC-GA could easily attend each session merely to block every proposal. According to a member of the Demands WG, this is already occurring in several Working Groups.


To placate the rest of OWS, the Structure WG amended their original proposal and gave the NYC-GA power to dissolve the Spokes Council. This amendment is irrelevant, however, given the 90% majority requirement in the NYC-GA, and the ability of members of the Spokes Council to vote in the NYC-GA.
The "Spokes Council"
The newly formed Spokes Council claims to adhere to the "statement of principles" adopted by the New York City General Assembly, including "direct-democracy, non-hierarchy, participation, and inclusion." The Spokes Council differs from the NYC-GA, however, in three main respects: the Spokes Council has the power to exclude new groups that don't receive a 90% majority vote for admission; in the NYC-GA, everybody technically has the right to speak, whereas in the Spokes Council each Working Group has a spokesperson, who can be recalled only by a 90% majority; and the NYC-GA allows one vote per person, whereas the Spokes Council operates more indirectly, granting each Working Group one vote.
When I pointed out the contradictions these differences present to the Council's stated principles, the leaders of Sunday's teach-in insisted that the Spokes Council was the most participatory, democratic organization possiblethe same slogan they repeated last month about the General Assembly. I felt like I was watching a local production of Animal Farm.


I've attended two mock Spokes Councils in the past month. At the Spokes Council in Washington Square Park on October 15, the unelected facilitators set the agenda: Occupy Washington Square Park. Then they set the terms of debate, breaking the group into three circles: those who wanted to occupy and possibly get arrested, those who wanted there to be an occupation and would assist those being arrested, and those who wanted to build the movement in other ways. I went with the third group.


The facilitators told each group to elect a facilitator, a note-taker, and a spokesperson who would read the notes from each group's meeting. Almost immediately, one of the members of the OWS inner-circle asked my group if anybody had a problem if she facilitated. Nobody objected, so she was "elected." Although she was in the one group that opposed occupying Washington Square Park, she lectured us about the need to occupy public parks.


I was vocal in my group, arguing that the fundamental problem in our hierarchical, bureaucratic society is the lack of a truly democratic, dialogic way of relating to one anothernot that public parks close at midnight. I repeated the arguments I had raised in previous General Assemblies, concluding that OWS' main goal should be to develop dialogic, democratic methods in the occupied areas, and to extend this way of life into every home, workplace and school, and in local, regional, national and international bodies.


My advocacy for radical democracy wasn't particularly popular. Ironically, the predominantly middle-class, white men leading the movement claim that their hostility to democracy is in the interest of "protecting minorities," referring to oppressed genders, races, classes, ages, and nations. Far from being "minorities," these people make up the majority of the world's population; the worldwide outcry for democracy vitiates the paternalistic notion that the oppressed need "protection."


The discussion turned to which locations the movement should occupy, ignoring the question of whether occupation for the sake of occupation was a good idea. I suggested teaming with evicted tenants and former homeowners to occupy foreclosed homes, abandoned apartments and unsold condosan act that would strike at the heart of the economic crisis, and endear the movement to the oppressed. This idea generated a lot of support, but was not repeated by my "spokesperson" when the groups reconvened.


At the teach-in on Sunday the 23rd, one of the leaders' main gripesrightfully sowas that the NYC-GA was inefficient and dominated by society's vocal minorities, particularly middle-class white men. The underlying cause is not eliminated by the Spokes Council, but is in fact exacerbated by it. The major flaw of the General Assembly is the need for a 90% majority to pass proposals. This "modified consensus" ensures the continuation of the dominant culture through the passage of only the most conservative measures. In the Spokes Council, proposals can be blocked by 11% of the members of 11% of the Working Groups, meaning that a minority of 1.2% can stymie the will of 98.8% majority.


Instead of cutting to the structural and psychological core of oppression, the proponents of the Spokes Council merely apply a topical cream by demanding that no WG have the same spokesperson more than once a week. The leaders of OWS seem to understand that a genuinely revolutionary movement would lead to deepening involvement by oppressed communities. The leaders then try to reverse-engineer a revolution by consistently choosing among the few people of color and women involved in OWS to be its spokespeople and facilitators, as if this token involvement will guarantee a genuine revolutionary movement. In fact, tokenism obscures the need for systematic change by misrepresenting the demographics of OWS. Tokenism also gives the leaders of OWS an argument to fall back upon when confronted with the fact that they have thus far been unable to mobilize and involve most of the 99%.


The Spokes Council, in fact, doesn't have enough regard for working people, students and people with dependents to have one of their three weekly meetings on a weekend afternoon. Instead of ensuring broad participation of traditionally marginalized and oppressed communities, OWS limits participation to individuals from these communities who are privileged enough to be able to spend three workdays a week at Zuccotti Park.


The participation of oppressed people in oppressive organizations is not a step towards liberation, but is the deepening of their complicity in their own domination. The unabated war on women and people of color in America, during Obama's presidency, with Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, is a testament to the structural and psychological nature of oppression, and the inability for spokespeople to represent the oppressed.
My Address to the General Assembly
After the Structure WG's teach-in ended, I put together a short summary of what I'd heard. I waited for two hours while the General Assembly slowly got to the announcements--the only part of the NYC-GA open for anyone to participate.


When my turn came to speak, I brought up the plans of "the leaders of the allegedly leaderless movement" to commandeer the half-million dollars sent to the General Assembly for their new, exclusive, undemocratic, representational organization. Before I could finish, the facilitators and other members of the OWS inner circle started shouting over me. Amidst the confusion, the human mic stopped projecting what I, or anybody was saying. Because silence was what they were after, the leaders won.


Eventually one of the facilitators regained control of the crowd and explained that I was speaking "opinions, not facts," which is why I would not be allowed to continue. He also asserted untruthfully that I had gone over my allotted minute. Notably, the facilitators and members of the OWS inner circle regularly ignore time restrictions.


This reaction shouldn't surprise anyone. It is reasonable to expect any undemocratic organization to be co-opted eventually by a vocal minority or charismatic individual. On Friday, October 29, the proposal to create the Spokes Council was put to the NYC-GA for a fifth time, and finally received a 90% majority. The facilitators assisted the process by denying two vocal critics of the Spokes Council their allotted time to speak against it.


Sometimes it snows before the leaves have fallen. The ineffective and increasingly symbolic NYC-GA will most likely continue to hang around as long as the people who congregate in Zuccotti Park hold out hope for a more participatory, democratic society. The Spokes Council will only be more effective in its exclusiveness.. Let's hope the inclusive spirit driving the Occupy movement is not frozen out.


Fritz Tucker is a native Brooklynite, writer, activist, theorist and researcher of people's movements the world over, from the US to Nepal. He blogs at fritztucker.blogspot.com

[Peter Lemkin]

Well, the above post is truly depressing.....and perhaps not too surprising....let's hope it corrects itself and remember that each occupation has different rules and methods of interaction. It is much too early to say the movement has failed or is beyond reform for deviations from egalitarian and democratic principles. I've seen other problems with the rules in the chatrooms and some decisions made, but on the whole I am still a supporter and on balance pleased with the movement as a whole. Let's hope it reaches some state of homeostasis and that the report above is a momentary aberrant move. :nono:

[Ed Jewett]

Pardon me for waxing micro/macro, but this is open global street theatre in an age status post Wurlitzer, alternate reality games, and the weaponization of social sciences like anthropology, and all manner of heavy socio-cultural-polittical forces are going to move the push or pull the outcome. I am simply hoping that the changing platforms of consciousness remain in stable shape and that the change we all undergo in undergoing the movement will determine the outcome. In other words, that there are enough people who have attainted enough awareness and consciousness to be immune to propaganda, games, and other machinations.

[Peter Lemkin]

By Chris Hedges
NEW YORK CITYJon Friesen, 27, tall and lanky with a long, dirty-blond ponytail, a purple scarf and an old green fleece, is sitting on concrete at the edge of Zuccotti Park leading a coordination meeting, a gathering that takes place every morning with representatives of each of Occupy Wall Street's roughly 40 working groups.
"Our conversation is about what it means to be a movement and what it means to be an organization," he says to the circle. A heated discussion follows, including a debate over whether the movement should make specific demands.
I find him afterward on a low stone wall surrounding a flowerbed in the park. He decided to come to New York City, he said, from the West Coast for the 10th anniversary of 9/11. He found a ride on Craig's List while staying at his brother's home in Champaign, Ill.
"It was a television event when I was 17," he says of the 2001 attacks. "I came here for the 10-year anniversary. I wanted to make it real to myself. I'd never been to New York. I'd never been to the East Coast."
Once he reached New York City he connected with local street people to find "assets." He slept in the parks and on the street. He arrived on the first day of the occupation in Zuccotti Park. He found other "traveler types" whose survival skills and political consciousness were as developed as his own.
In those first few days, he says, "it was the radicals and the self-identifying anarchists" who set up the encampment. Those who would come later, usually people with little experience in dumpster diving, sleeping on concrete or depending on a McDonald's restroom, would turn to revolutionists like Friesen for survival. Zuccotti Park, like most Occupied sites, schooled the uninitiated.
"The structure and process carried out by those initial radicals," he says with delight of the first days in the park, now have "a wide appeal."
The Occupy movements that have swept across the country fuse the elements vital for revolt. They draw groups of veteran revolutionists whose isolated struggles, whether in the form of squatter communities or acts of defiance such as the tree-sit in Berkeley to save an oak grove on the University of California campus that ran from Dec. 2, 2006, to Sept. 9, 2008, are often unheeded by the wider culture. The Occupy movements were nurtured in small, dissident enclaves in New York, Oakland, Chicago, Denver, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Atlanta. Bands of revolutionists in these cities severed themselves from the mainstream, joined with other marginalized communities and mastered the physical techniques of surviving on the streets and in jails.
"It's about paying attention to exactly what you need, and figuring out where I can get food and water, what time do the parks close, where I can get a shower," Friesen says.
Friesen grew up in an apolitical middle-class home in Fullerton in Southern California's Orange County, where systems of power were obeyed and rarely questioned. His window into political consciousness began inauspiciously enough as a teenager, with the Beatles, The Doors, and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. He found in the older music "a creative energy" and "authenticity" that he did not hear often in contemporary culture. He finished high school and got a job in a LensCrafter lab and "experienced what it's like to slave away trying to make glasses in an hour." He worked at a few other 9-to-5 jobs but found them "restrictive and unfulfilling." And then he started to drift, working his way up to Berkeley, where
he lived in a squatter encampment behind the UC Berkeley football stadium. He used the campus gym to take showers. By the time he reached Berkeley he had left mainstream society. He has lived outside the formal economy since 2005, the last year he filed income taxes. He was involved in the tree-sit protest and took part in the occupations of university buildings and demonstration outside the Berkeley chancellor's campus residence to protest fee hikes and budget cuts, activities that saw him arrested and jailed. He spent time with the Navajos on Black Mesa in Arizona and two months with the Zapatistas in Mexico.
"What I saw in the Zapatistas was a people pushed to the brink of extinction and forgetting," he says. "Their phrases ring true: Liberty! Dignity! Democracy! Everything for Everyone! Nothing for Ourselves! The masks the Zapatistas wear check egos. People should be united in their facelessness. This prevents cults of personality."
"I have no interest in participating in the traditional political process," he says. "It's bureaucratic. It's vertical. It's exclusive. It's ruled by money. It's cumbersome. This is cumbersome too, what we're doing here, but the principles that I'm pushing and that many people are pushing to uphold here are in direct opposition to the existing structure. This is a counterpoint. This is an acknowledgement of all those things that we hate, or that I hate, which are closed and exclusive. It is about defying status and power, certification and legitimacy, institutional validation to participate. This process has infected our consciousness as far as people being allowed [to participate] or even being given credibility. The wider society creates a situation where people are excluded, people feel like they're not worth anything. They're not accepted. The principles here are horizontal in terms of decision-making, transparency, openness, inclusiveness, accessibility. There are people doing sign language at the general assembly now. There are clusters of deaf people that come together and do sign language together. This is an example of the inclusive nature that we want to create here. And as far as redefining participation and the democratic process, my understanding of American history is that it was a bunch of white males in power, mostly. This is radically different. If you're a homeless person, if you're a street person, you can be here. There's a radical inclusion that's going on. And if it's not that, then I'm not going to participate."
The park, especially at night, is a magnet for the city's street population. The movement provides food along with basic security, overseen by designated "peacekeepers" and a "de-escalation team" that defuses conflicts. Those like Friesen who span the two cultures serve as the interlocutors.
"It draws everyone, except maybe the superrich," he says of the park. "You're dealing with everyone's conditioning, everyone's fucked-up conditioning, the kind of I'm-out-for-me-and-myself, that kind of instinct. People are unruly. People are violent. People make threats."
"We are trying to sort this out, how to work together in a more holistic approach versus just security-checking someoneyou know like tackling them," he says. "Where else do these people have to go, these street people? They're going to come to a place where they feel cared for, especially in immediate needs like food and shelter. We have a comfort committee. I've never been to a place where there's a comfort committee. This is where you can get a blanket and a sleeping bag, if we have them. We don't always have the resources. But everyone is being taken care of here. As long as you're nonviolent, you're taken care of. And when you do that you draw all sorts of people, including those people who have problematic behavior. If we scale up big enough we might be able to take care of the whole street population of Manhattan."
The park, like other Occupied sites across the country, is a point of integration, a place where middle-class men and women, many highly educated but unschooled in the techniques of resistance, are taught by those who have been carrying out acts of rebellion for the last few years. These revolutionists bridge the world of the streets with the world of the middle class.
"They're like foreign countries almost, the street culture and the suburban culture," Friesen says. "They don't understand each other. They don't share their experiences. They're isolated from each other. It's like Irvine and Orange County [home of the city of Irvine]; the hearsay is that they deport the homeless. They pick them up and move them out. There's no trying to engage. And it speaks to the larger issue, I feel, of the isolation of the individual. The individual going after their individual pursuits, and this facade of individuality, of consumeristic materialism. This materialism is about an individuality that is surface-deep. It has no depth. That's translated into communities throughout the country that don't want anything to do with each other, that are so foreign to each other that there is hardly a drop of empathy between them."
"This is a demand to be heard," he says of the movement. "It's a demand to have a voice. People feel voiceless. They want a voice and participation, a renewed sense of self-determination, but not self-determination in the individualistic need of just-for-me-self. But as in I recognize that my actions have effects on the people around me.' I acknowledge that, so let's work together so that we can accommodate everyone."
Friesen says that digital systems of communication helped inform new structures of communication and new systems of self-governance.
"Open source started out in the '50s and '60s over how software is used and what rights the user has over the programs and tools they use," he says. "What freedoms do you have to use, modify and share software? That's translated into things like Wikipedia. We're moving even more visibly and more tangibly into a real, tangible, human organization. We modify techniques. We use them. We share them. We decentralize them. You see the decentralization of a movement like this."
Revolutions need their theorists, but such upheavals are impossible without hardened revolutionists like Friesen who haul theory out of books and shove it into the face of reality. The anarchist Michael Bakunin by the end of the 19th century was as revered among radicals as Karl Marx. Bakunin, however, unlike Marx, was a revolutionist. He did not, like Marx, retreat into the British Library to write voluminous texts on preordained revolutions. Bakunin's entire adult life was one of fierce physical struggle, from his role in the uprisings of 1848, where, with his massive physical bulk and iron determination, he manned barricades in Paris, Austria and Germany, to his years in the prisons of czarist Russia and his dramatic escape from exile in Siberia.
Bakunin had little time for Marx's disdain for the peasantry and the lumpenproletariat of the urban slums. Marx, for all his insight into the self-destructive machine of unfettered capitalism, viewed the poor as counterrevolutionaries, those least capable of revolutionary action. Bakunin, however, saw in the "uncivilized, disinherited, and illiterate" a pool of revolutionists who would join the working class and turn on the elites who profited from their misery and enslavement. Bakunin proved to be the more prophetic. The successful revolutions that swept through the Slavic republics and later Russia, Spain and China, and finally those movements that battled colonialism in Africa and the Middle East as well as military regimes in Latin America, were largely spontaneous uprisings fueled by the rage of a disenfranchised rural and urban working class, and that of dispossessed intellectuals. Revolutionary activity, Bakunin correctly observed, was best entrusted to those who had no property, no regular employment and no stake in the status quo. Finally, Bakunin's vision of revolution, which challenged Marx's rigid bifurcation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, carved out a vital role for these rootless intellectuals, the talented sons and daughters of the middle class who had been educated to serve within elitist institutions, or expected a place in the middle class, but who had been cast aside by society. The discarded intellectualsunemployed journalists, social workers, teachers, artists, lawyers and studentswere for Bakunin a valuable revolutionary force: "fervent, energetic youths, totally déclassé, with no career or way out." These déclassé intellectuals, like the dispossessed working class, had no stake in the system and no possibility for advancement. The alliance of an estranged class of intellectuals with dispossessed masses creates the tinder, Bakunin argued, for successful revolt. This alliance allows a revolutionary movement to skillfully articulate grievances while exposing and exploiting, because of a familiarity with privilege and power, the weaknesses of autocratic, tyrannical rule.
The Occupy movement is constantly evolving as it finds what works and discards what does not. At any point in the day, knots of impassioned protesters can be found in discussions that involve self-criticism and self-reflection. This makes the movement radically different from liberal reformist movements that work within the confines of established systems of corporate power, something Marx understood very well. It means that the movement's war of attrition will be long and difficult, that it will face reverses and setbacks, but will, if successful, ultimately tear down the decayed edifices of the corporate state.
Marx wrote: "Bourgeois revolutions, like those of the eighteenth century, storm more swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the daybut they are short-lived, soon they have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer [hangover] takes hold of society before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly. On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goalsuntil a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out: Hier ist die Rose, hier tanze' [Here is the rose, here the dance]."

[Ed Jewett]

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/f...blogid=57&

Seen elsewhere (with a tip of the cap to Silvija):




Otpor and OWS:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZVVo-M_-...r_embedded


Engdahl confirms in this interview that Otpor from Serbia was deployed by US intelligence to the revolutions in the Arab world this year. Otpor was created in Serbia and funded by Soros to originally topple Milosevic with such revolts. Later, Otpor was deployed to various other parts of the world - such as the Arab spring - in need of engineered revolutions. Sometimes, their logo of the black and white fist appears with the word Otpor! - or also as: Отпор! (Same thing in Serbian Cyrollic). Otpor in Serbian means resistance. A generic rent-a-resistance operated by Soros and CIA and deployed world-wide.

A few words about Otpor - this group is a highly effective CIA infiltration group seen at more and more global protests.

This is Otpor at OWS in NYC - I posted this video before - a Serbian named Ivan Marovic, co-founded of Otpor leading groups in OWS in NYC on behalf of US intelligence. Otpor is originally a Serbia-based Soros-steered CIA operation which employs rent-a-rebels to any part of the world. Otpor in NYC during OWS. Otpor's symbol is the black and white fist - take a look at how many rallies world-wide they have appeared on behalf of US intelligence: Otpor world-wide . Soros sent them to all revolutions in the ex-USSR and Arab world.

Otpor throughout the world


Symbols of Otpor:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JQEktudjGQo/TU...porasi.jpg


This here is highly interesting:


http://www.blic.rs/data/images/2011-09-2...316711388]



This is Otpor in Sandzak, Serbia. This region is ENTIRELY governed by Wahhabi under sharia law (their community center is even named Donmeh) and this Soros-funded Otpor initiative in Wahhabi Sandzak is perfect evidence of the very real union between faux liberal Zionists of Soros and the ultra-fundamentalist sharia law radical muslim groups of Europe, specifically the Wahhabi in Sandzak. What is Soros doing funding extremist muslim groups??? Keep this example in mind when someone tells you again that Soros is a "liberal". Or a philanthropist...

This is the true face of Otpor:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cSnUkhOOngc/Rz...kdiss1.jpg



My point all along has been - Otpor, the Wahhabi and such groups which plagued the Balkans in the 90s and were used to destroy Yugoslavia are now being exported throughout the world and used in revolutions, compliments of Soros and US intelligence. It is a part of Soros' infiltration, social engineering and nation-destroying used effectively many times when countries were broken and taken over. It is here in the US now for what I believe is a similar mission. Be aware who these groups are.

****


Are the "Occupy" movements created by CIA, to speed up the NWO?? (Part 1)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_6zaObmE...r_embedded


Uploaded by undercoveralien on Oct 19, 2011
Certainly I'll take some heat for messing with this controversial subject, but the fact is that there's a LOT of evidence pointing out for this conclusion: TPTB are pulling the strings behind the "Occupy" movements, through US government/CIA fronts, which are using the crowd as pawns in the "problem + reaction = solution" type of events. For the record, I'm not talking about mere agents infiltrated amid the protesters. I'm talking about the same huge apparatus used in "soft coup" operations, carried out to take down political regimes.
I've stumbled with several material suggesting that the "Occupy" movements might be a series of COINTELPRO ops created to speed up the NWO.

http://theintelhub.com/2011/02/19/cia-coup-college/
http://djosiris.blogspot.com/2011/10/occ...-with.html
http://truedemocracyparty.net/2011/10/oc...ze-america...
http://www.ex-yupress.com/vjesnik/vjesnik39.html
http://serbianna.com/blogs/bozinovich/
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutt...tiatives/c...
http://www.longitude361.com/?p=508
http://occupyseattle.org/resource/genera...nd-signals
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http:/...rker260311...
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/o...ackerman's...
http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker08.html
http://www.truthistreason.net/global-rev...anced-by-u...
http://www.canvasopedia.org/external-links.php
http://www.cia-on-campus.org/social/behavior.html
http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=we...0CDAQFjAD&...
Category:
Education
Tags:

1. Occupy Wall Street OWS Seattle London Rome Ivan Marovic Srdja Popovic OTPOR CANVAS CIA COINTELPRO Soft Coup Illuminati NWO
   

License:
Standard YouTube License


***


Are the "Occupy" movements created by CIA, to speed up the NWO?? (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=OIaGeow68iU




****


The role of CIA Manchurian operatives at Occupy Wall Street. (part 1)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYwmlc7Rn...r_embedded



The whole OWS movement is full of Otpor symbols. The Occupy Seattle has the Otpor fist right on its logo - how many followers in Seattle know this is a CIA cointelpro symbol?? There is cointelpro at the top of the OWS leadership everywhere if you carefully learn how to read the signs. Watch these videos, guys. I do know who these groups are from teh Balkans. i just did not know they are all over OWS. Alarm bells!

This below ties right in - this is what our rent-a-revolutions in the Balkans looked like with Otpor running things - the NWO hires these guys to organize and lead and then it takes a turn toward violence - and then comes Martial Law or some kind of problem-reaction-solution scenario. Be aware of these guys. Otopr showed up in the Balkans, ex-Soviet republics, Arab spring - when they show up, it means the fat lady just arrived and is warming up her vocal cords. They are a part of the end game - bring down countries via synthetic revolution and they help usher in new dictators who arise from within these revolutions and are puppets just like the Otpor revolutionaries...and the fat lady is singling all over OWS throughout the US now.


U.S. MILITARY WARNS OF PLOT BY FEDERAL RESERVE BANKERS TO HAVE CIA MERCENARIES FROM LIBYA KILL NEW YORK COPS


http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2011/10...deral.html


****

The role of CIA Manchurian operatives at Occupy Wall Street. (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8HaMtGrv..._embedded#!


The role of CIA Manchurian operatives at Occupy Wall Street. (part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oelhnPIkq...re=related


total viewing time for these two videos: 18 minutes


****

[Peter Lemkin]

Anyone who would like a brief summary of the previous day's events at most [not all] Occupations can go to http://occupyupdatesdaily.blogspot.com/

[Ed Jewett]

Occupy and the militarisation of policing protest

Why, when protesters are peaceably exercising first amendment rights, is the machinery of counter-terrorism being mobilised?

Police preparing to enter the Occupy Oakland encampment, 25 October. Photograph: Noah Berger/AP

In our not-so-distant history, protest in the United States was handled by local law enforcement that treated demonstrations and marches as mere nuisance, mediating and directing as needed. Today, observing the interaction between Occupy movements and law enforcement suggests something different is afoot. Present Occupy protests are now being defined by a bewildering set of law enforcement strategies and current practices display a worrying new trend.
While riot police are not necessarily an everyday feature at any given protest, the sheer frequency with which we are witnessing their presence on city streets throughout the United States is enough to give average citizens cause for concern; the excessive force being routinely deployed is alarming.
Within the first few days of Occupy Wall Street, protesters began to notice the presence of the NYPD's Counter Terrorism Unit at Liberty Plaza. Joanne Stocker, who has become a fixture since day one at Wall Street, recalls within the first few days waking up to a Counter Terrorism Unit van, parked on the fringes of Liberty Plaza, which was taking video of her and her friends while they slept.
Protesters at other Occupy encampments give similar accounts. Robin Jacks, a member of Occupy Boston's media team, relates being photographed multiple times by police. Dustin Slaughter, who has spent time both at Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Philadelphia, attests to the presence of the NYPD Counter Terrorism Unit at Liberty Plaza, saying that the Counter Terrorism Unit have been at Liberty Plaza filming on a regular basis. Slaughter also comments: "Philadelphia Police Homeland Security Units have had a regular presence at the Occupy Philadelphia encampment."
Protesters are indeed correct to view the law enforcement they encounter at Occupy with a critical eye. The USA Patriot Act, which had its 10-year anniversary last week, gave the US government virtually unchecked powers to spy and track the activity of ordinary Americans without probable cause right after the 9/11 attacks. For that reason, it should come as no surprise that law enforcement agencies thus empowered have shown up at various Occupy protests armed with cameras, most certainly, to keep surveillance on protesters who are merely exercising their first amendment rights.
Reports of targeted arrests of informal "leaders" at Wall Street, Chicago and Boston indicate surveillance measures are operating. In Boston and Chicago, reports of extended and humiliating detentions of targeted occupy "leaders", typically from Direct Action, media, legal and medics groups, are disturbing. Dan Massoglia of the Occupy Chicago media team further reports that arrested individuals were deprived of their phone call, food and water, and that mattresses were removed from cells, while one woman was placed in solitary confinement.
Curfews placed on occupied city parks are equally perplexing. Legislative Plaza, the site for Occupy Nashville, was ordered to be shut down between 10pm and 6am, rendering its occupation impossible. The orders, however, did not follow standard procedure. Instead of being issued by Nashville municipality, the order came from the state of Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security.
Nancy Murray, director of education at the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU, views the various signs of Department of Homeland Security involvement as important indicators that the federal government is orchestrating the policing of Occupy protests throughout the country.
"This would be a big concern because it would show that the federal government is possibly playing an active role in opposing people's rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble," says Murray.
Does this mean that protesters are being treated as terrorists? "It's too early to tell," says Murray. "But it's obvious the feds are watching and observing to get more information … It is possible that the Joint Terrorism Task Force is calling the shots."
"At the beginning of this movement, I could understand why there might have been a presence of Counter Terrorism Units operating at Liberty Plaza because nobody knew who we were and what we represented," states Stocker. "Now, their presence is just overkill and antagonistic. What we stand for is clear and it is clear we are not terrorists."
Occupy protesters should make themselves familiar with the USA Patriot Act. Section 802 expanded the definition of domestic terrorism to include persons who engage in acts of civil disobedience to coerce or affect the conduct of government by intimidation of the civilian population. Furthermore, the US Department of Defence training manuals, until an amendment in 2009, equated protest with "low-level terrorism". Although the DoD changed the wording two years ago, human rights lawyers and activists have lingering concerns about whether the sentiment and intent has caught up with the change.
Finally, there is the disquieting issue of excessive force at Occupy. In the autumn of 2008, the Army Times reported that for the first time, the US Army planned to station an active unit under the control of Northern Command serving as an on-call federal response in times of both natural and man-made emergencies, including terrorist attacks. Training included a non-lethal package, elements of which the US Army has been using in Iraq, designed to subdue unruly individuals. "The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets."
Despite the existence of the National Guard, whose raison d'etre is to augment civilian law enforcement when its capabilities are exceeded, this additional unit, according to the Army Times, may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control. The excessive force exhibited at some Occupy locations the use of tear gas; alleged use of rubber bullets and reported presence of sonic weapons is becoming a pattern. A protester in California, who wished to remain anonymous, recalls experience of a long range acoustic device (LRAD) in Oakland last week:

"I had been tear gassed three times, so when I first saw the sound cannon, I panicked. When the cannon went off, I felt it pulse through me and I instantly felt dizzy and nauseated. At one point, I fell over. I noticed others around me had fallen over as well and some vomited."

Such anti-riot technologies were characterised as inhumane by human rights observerswhen they were used to subdue unarmed, peaceful protesters during civil unrest in Tbilisi, Georgia, in 2007. They have no place in a democratic country. They may be characterised by authorities as "non-lethal", but they can all too easily become lethal if misused by reckless law enforcement agents. The Occupy movement is explicitly a nonviolent exercise of first amendment rights, yet its policing bears all the hallmarks of a chilling militarisation of law enforcement in the United States.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...test/print

[Peter Lemkin]

Oh, I'm sure deep in the bowels of the H.S. those connected with the Occupy movements who have such heinous ideas as stopping the banksters from stealing more and running and ruining our polity - and an end to aggressive wars [and a few other demands - local, national and international - but all along the lines of the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the US Constitution] have been officially labeled as terrorists - and all now have 'files' [ever growing] which will make it difficult for them to fly, get jobs, not be endlessly stopped by the Police in the future, etc. unless the Revolution is successful. I'm sure my file [started long ago for other such things in the 1960s] is being updated too, as I am voicing my support for OWS and participating on their chat and watching their various channels, etc. It is actually one of the least stated demands, but present in the movement - the end of the surveillance and police state. We ARE so very close to a full-blown police state and, sadly, most Americans just refuse to believe that that can happen - after all 'this is America' and that is just the point....it can and will happen because, after all, 'this is America', now.....and always was deep down inside. We, the People did not fight the growing 'beast' and now have to deal with it nearly fully grown, I'm afraid. Good luck to us all, as IMHO this is the last chance - there will be no others. We have between 1 and a very few years, at most. Sad.